GH3 Mid-range zoom suggestions?

The only gold-band ones I've seen recently are the A09-II, without aperture ring. (However, strangely, the Pentax-mount version I had was the original A09 with filter ring, yet it had a gold band and was manufactured in Japan! So my guess is Gold=Japan, Black=China??)

I have not ever seen a black-band A09-IIs ... and I recall KEH does include the II in their description.
 
GrahamH said:
The only gold-band ones I've seen recently are the A09-II, without aperture ring. (However, strangely, the Pentax-mount version I had was the original A09 with filter ring, yet it had a gold band and was manufactured in Japan! So my guess is Gold=Japan, Black=China??)

I have not ever seen a black-band A09-IIs ... and I recall KEH does include the II in their description.
Click to expand...

Well then, they must not have any, because I can't find any that do. :/

I wonder if they'll accept this one as a return?
 
I took a look at KEH, and I think you are correct - they dont have any A09-IIs listed presently. There seems to be some variation in their descriptions of the same lens model, but if you dont see A09II mentioned, another thing to look for is "9-pin". The earlier A09's are "5-pin", and I do see that spec included in a couple of the current KEH listings.

Here's the lens model and labeling I've had success with: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tamron-28-7...16179826?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item20e719c772

I returned my black-band lens to KEH for a refund without having any hassle. (I think there is a time window for doing that though). In fact it crossed my mind that your lens may be the same one I returned - hopefully not, since I did that a few months ago.
 
Personally I would avoid variable aperture zooms.

The FD 28-85 constant f4, or one of the 35-70 constant f3.5s (Nikon Ai, Minolta MD etc) might be preferable.
 
GrahamH said:
Personally I would avoid variable aperture zooms.

The FD 28-85 constant f4, or one of the 35-70 constant f3.5s (Nikon Ai, Minolta MD etc) might be preferable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the problem I'm running into now with my Lumix. I shoot live events, and during zoom the shot becomes useless. Does anyone here have a Canon FD zoom they would be selling? ;)

I'd be interested for sure.
 
Brandon Rice said:
Yeah, that's the problem I'm running into now with my Lumix. I shoot live events, and during zoom the shot becomes useless. Does anyone here have a Canon FD zoom they would be selling? ;)

I'd be interested for sure.
Click to expand...

I'm likely ready to give up my 35-105 constant f/3.5 FD. I'm not really impressed with the color from it, but it'll probably be better than what you're using!
 
I 'gave-up' on the 35-105 FD almost 4 years ago when I tested it on my GH2 and AF100, my sample had a reasonable sweet-spot for resolution but the color was puzzling and it was very obvious on a timeline cut against my other lenses, about the best thing you could say about it was 'the price was right'. After trying lots and lots of things my opinion is that legacy 35mm DSLR zooms are a bit of a minefield, I like some of the FD L series telephoto zooms, but for run-n-gun its difficult to compete with modern designs despite their 'peculiarities'. I've seen some decent footage from some of the fantastically high-end Leica R series zooms, and there is a minolta 35-70 that is the same design as the Leica R, there is a real legacy Minolta 'cult' out there so some of them aren't cheap. I think for m43 its difficult to find anything that works better than the native zooms, especially the Lumix 12-35 and 35-100.
 
Firstly, the Lumix 35-100 is 5-10 times the price of the lenses being discussed here. Secondly, if one wants manual focus and particularly follow-focus then focus-by-wire is not necessarily better.

The Minolta MD 35-70 is better than the Canon FD but wide open is not as sharp as the Tamron 28-75mm.
 
GrahamH said:
Firstly, the Lumix 35-100 is 5-10 times the price of the lenses being discussed here. Secondly, if one wants manual focus and particularly follow-focus then focus-by-wire is not necessarily better.

The Minolta MD 35-70 is better than the Canon FD but wide open is not as sharp as the Tamron 28-75mm.
Click to expand...

Maybe the gold band one. The black Tamron (made in china versions, apparently) are softer than my FD 35-105. Or at least the one I have is.

Going to return this to KEH and look for a gold banded one. Very disappointed. If that doesn't work out, I'm off to the Nikkors.

Yes, a 35-105 Lumix lens would work a treat, and I could probably use the stabilzation, but I'm personally more interested in speedboosting something to f/2 or more with my focal reducer. :)
 
Here's one of the best images on the cheap you can get. Maybe a bit long in 4K, but it's parafocal, constant f4 aperture and has beautiful white white colors and sharp contrast. See if you can get the newer version with the MC designation. That's the multi coated one and has a yellow gold tint to the front element vs. just clear.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/75150mm.htm
http://www.keh.com/camera/Olympus--Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-OM07002500749N?r=FE

Anyway for $39 - $43 on KEH.com this thing is a steal for what it does !!!

Cheers,
Pete
 
M. Gilden said:
Yes, a 35-105 Lumix lens would work a treat, and I could probably use the stabilzation, but I'm personally more interested in speedboosting something to f/2 or more with my focal reducer. :)
Click to expand...

Not too many of the older f/2.8 zooms are good or affordable. One lens I'm thinking of picking up is the Nikon 50-135mm f/3.5, which is supposed to be quite good optically and with a 0.71x SpeedBooster it becomes a 35-95mm f/2.5 lens.
 
A couple of thoughts or suggestions on legacy mid-range (I call them trans-standard, as they cover the legacy 50mm (for 135mm still cameras) zooms:

I shoot 4/3rds still cameras and this is a particularly useful range (short-to-mid telephoto), so I tried out different alternatives. The best performers I found were the Vivitar Series 1 28-90 f/2.8-3.5: good colors and contrast, horrible to work with (varifocal design, variable aperture). I've tried a couple of these and sample variability was pretty low.

Tamron made a SP 35-80 f/2.8-3.8 which was more convenient and did a nice job of focusing closely, but lacked wide-open bite in contrast. Still, it was a pretty compact lens and useful for travel. I recently picked up the 35-105/2.8 and I'm still getting used to it, but so far it's been pretty nice: decent contrast wide-open, useful range, good handling (one-touch slide-zoom). The main drawback is it doesn't focus very close (down to 1m or so).

Kiron makes a 28-85 f/2.8-3.5 which I've tried a few times and put aside: the lens was okay but had really nervous, distracting out-of-focus highlights which would be useful for a certain look, but not very helpful in general.

I haven't tried the Canon 35-105/3.5 very much but wasn't too impressed by it. The Canon zooms in this range that I have used (and recommend) if you can live with the limited range are the two-ring 35-70 f/2.8-3.5 and the 28-50 f/3.5. Both of them have pretty much the same design; the 28-50 is a little newer, and it appears Canon responded to criticism of the variable aperture in the 35-70 by forcing the 28-50 to stop down slightly at the wide end (you can see the aperture close down slightly as it zooms). Both designs exhibit excellent color and contrast, assuming you keep the sun off the lens at the wide end. There is a handling quirk in that they both have a "macro mode" at the wide end of the zoom locked out by a separate button. Minimum focus distance without resorting to "macro" is pretty mediocre. Both are physically large zooms given their ranges, but the results are comparable to the FD primes I have in their respective ranges (FD 28/2, 35/2, 50/3.5, 50/1.4).

Of course, there is the Olympus 35-100 f/2, but if the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 isn't an option ...
 
So, I called KEH to ask about swapping this out for a gold-colored band version, but just as I thought - They say they can't determine what color band is on the lens, as the lenses are in a warehouse packed away in a separate facility from the offices. The Nikon A09 (both I and II models) seems to be a toss up, as I've seen pictures of both black and gold banded with and without aperture rings.

Meanwhile they DO have a minolta and pentax version. The minolta probably isn't as useful to me (I'd ideally prefer something I can mount to my EOS focal reducer / speedbooster clone), not sure about Pentax. Never tried to adapt one of those, but I'm under the impression you can get a standard adapter ring for EOS just like you can with Nikon glass, right? Flange distance is greater? I'm still not guaranteed a gold banded one, but all of the Pentax models I've seen pictures of seem to be gold banded.
But maybe I should just give up on KEH and look to ebay, where I can actually see a picture of the exact lens I'm trying to buy.

My options as I see them are currently:
1) Exchange the KEH Tamron with a black ring for the Pentax mount, pay the difference (which is currently asking about $80 more than I paid for the Nikon due to better condition + caps / hood), hope its a gold banded one and then also buy an additional Pentax adapter which I don't yet have.
2) Exchange the KEH Tamron for a Nikon 35-70. More limited range, but I understand these are sharp and pretty awesome.
3) Return the Tamron to KEH, buy a gold band one Tamron on ebay instead where I can see what I'm getting.
4) Return the Tamron to KEH and get something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than what we've discussed so far. :/

Thoughts?


mliu92 said:
Tamron made a SP 35-80 f/2.8-3.8 which was more convenient and did a nice job of focusing closely, but lacked wide-open bite in contrast. Still, it was a pretty compact lens and useful for travel.
Click to expand...
I looked into this one, its pretty cheap. But the results were pretty soft on the reviews I saw.

Kiron makes a 28-85 f/2.8-3.5 which I've tried a few times and put aside: the lens was okay but had really nervous, distracting out-of-focus highlights which would be useful for a certain look, but not very helpful in general.

I haven't tried the Canon 35-105/3.5 very much but wasn't too impressed by it. The Canon zooms in this range that I have used (and recommend) if you can live with the limited range are the two-ring 35-70 f/2.8-3.5 and the 28-50 f/3.5. Both of them have pretty much the same design; the 28-50 is a little newer, and it appears Canon responded to criticism of the variable aperture in the 35-70 by forcing the 28-50 to stop down slightly at the wide end (you can see the aperture close down slightly as it zooms). Both designs exhibit excellent color and contrast, assuming you keep the sun off the lens at the wide end. There is a handling quirk in that they both have a "macro mode" at the wide end of the zoom locked out by a separate button. Minimum focus distance without resorting to "macro" is pretty mediocre. Both are physically large zooms given their ranges, but the results are comparable to the FD primes I have in their respective ranges (FD 28/2, 35/2, 50/3.5, 50/1.4).
Click to expand...

These are some nice options to consider, but I've already got my wide end covered below 50mm. The 35-70 is more what I'm looking for, but I don't like the aperture change. I might as well go with the Nikkor at that point.
 
Flange distance on the Pentax is essentially identical to Nikon.

The Tamron SP 35-80 is a good lens and the legacy manual focus action is nicer than the AF/MF rings on the newer Tamrons. However it's an old lens and may be hard to find in good condition - the one I tried had a very stiff zoom action. It is also not constant-aperture, which was close to being a deal-killer for me.

The various 70-150mm lenses (Vivitar, Kiron, Oly) and the 75-150 Pentax are all surprisingly good and super cheap. They are longer, slower and not as close focusing ... but using them with a Speedbooster does help address two of those three problems.
 
GrahamH said:
Flange distance on the Pentax is essentially identical to Nikon.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Still, there's no guarantee that the Pentax version will be any better than the black ring one I have, since they can't see the physical lens right now.

Maybe I'm better off just going with that 35-70mm Nikkor that seems consistently sharp.
 
TheDingo said:
The Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 AI-S lens is great, and fairly cheap. The Nikon 35-70mm f/3.5 AI-S lens is not as great, and very cheap.
Click to expand...

Yes, the f/2.8 version. Only options presented on KEH are the regular one and slightly more for the "D", but as I understand it, the D features would only be helpful on an actual Nikon body anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top